Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1932
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
R. Suryaprakash - Appellant
Versus
The Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Nandanam & Others - Respondent
W.P.No. 3837 of 2019 & W.M.P.Nos. 4263 & 4265 of 2019
Decided On : 07-06-2022
For the Petitioner:Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate. For the Respondents: Hema Muralikrishnan, Senior Standing Counsel.
Challenges to proceedings must be raised in the state where the assessing officials are situated, as established by previous case law and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Forum Conveniens - Territorial Jurisdiction - The court dismissed the writ petition on the doctrine of forum conveniens, holding that the substantial cause of action arose in Karnataka and the assessing officials were situated in Bangalore, thus vesting jurisdiction in the courts of Karnataka. The decision was influenced by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and previous case law, emphasizing that challenges to proceedings must be raised in the state where the assessing officials are situated.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned order withdrawing immunity against penalty and prosecution proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, citing the doctrine of forum conveniens and holding that the substantial cause of action arose in Karnataka, and the assessing officials were situated in Bangalore, thus vesting jurisdiction in the courts of Karnataka.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition on the doctrine of forum conveniens and the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the principle that challenges to proceedings must be raised in the state where the assessing officials are situated, as established by previous case law and judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and connected writ miscellaneous petitions were closed with no costs awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in PAN:DMSPS5204M and quash the impugned order in KA/BL4/2014-15/38/IT dated 22.01.2019 passed by the 1st respondent withdrawing the immunity granted by it against penalty and prosecution proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 as illegal arbitrary and devoid of merit.)
Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the writ petition on the doctrine of forum conveniens.
2. She further points out that the substantial cause of action agitated by the petitioner has arisen in Karnataka and the official respondents, that is R2 & R3, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, are Officers situated in Bangalore. Thus, mere arrayal of the Income Tax Settlement Commission as R1 would not vest jurisdiction in this Court as the Settlement Commission is an authority that exercises jurisdiction over matters arising from all Southern States and this constitute an administrative feature.
3. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mulberry Skills Ltd. Vs.Settlement Commission (IT & WT) [(2020) 428 ITR 136], referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India [ 2004 (168) ELT (3) SCC]; R.T.Industries Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission [(2018) 98 taxmann.com 236]; West Coast Ingots (P.) Ltd. V. CCE [(2007) 209 ELT 343] has considered an identical issue holding that challenge to the proceedings must be raised in the State where the assessing officials are situated.
4. In the above case as well, the petitioner was assessed in Karnataka and the Courts in Madras were held not to have requisite territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly accede to the position as enunciated above.
5. In light of the discussion as aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. Connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. No Costs.
